USCA11 Case: 21-14306 Date Filed: 09/23/2022 Page: 1 of 4

[DO NOT PUBLISH] In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit

____________________

No. 21-14306 Non-Argument Calendar ____________________

NORTON HELTON, Petitioner-Appellant, versus WARDEN,

Respondent-Appellee.

____________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Alabama D.C. Docket No. 2:19-cv-00031-WHA-KFP ____________________ USCA11 Case: 21-14306 Date Filed: 09/23/2022 Page: 2 of 4

2 Opinion of the Court 21-14306

Before ROSENBAUM, NEWSOM, and GRANT, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Norton Helton, a federal prisoner, appeals the dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 habeas corpus petition for lack of jurisdiction.1 But his arguments are foreclosed by McCarthan v. Director of Goodwill Industries-Suncoast, Inc., 851 F.3d 1076 (11th Cir. 2017) (en banc), and we therefore affirm the dismissal. Whether a prisoner may bring a § 2241 petition under the saving clause of § 2255(e) is a question of law that we review de novo. Id. at 1081. “The petitioner bears the burden of establishing that the remedy by motion was inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of his detention.” Id. (quotation omitted). Helton’s sentencing court denied his first § 2255 motion, 2 and the Seventh Circuit denied a certificate of appealability. Hel- ton then discovered evidence revealing a potential claim under Na- pue v. Illinois, 360 U.S. 264 (1959). He sought permission to file a successive § 2255 motion based on the “new evidence” exception— which requires that the “newly discovered evidence . . . , if proven

1 Helton proceeds pro se. Accordingly, his “pleadings are held to a less strin- gent standard . . . and will, therefore, be liberally construed.” Tannenbaum v. United States, 148 F.3d 1262, 1263 (11th Cir. 1998). 2 Section 2255 motions are filed in the sentencing court, which for Helton is the Northern District of Illinois. 28 U.S.C. § 2255(a). Section 2241 petitions are brought in the place of custody. Id. § 2241(a). USCA11 Case: 21-14306 Date Filed: 09/23/2022 Page: 3 of 4

21-14306 Opinion of the Court 3

and viewed in light of the evidence as a whole, would be sufficient to establish by clear and convincing evidence that no reasonable factfinder would have found the movant guilty of the offense.” 28 U.S.C. § 2255(h)(1). But the Seventh Circuit decided that this standard was not met and denied his application. Helton then filed a § 2241 petition under the saving clause of 28 U.S.C. § 2255(e). But he cannot circumvent the procedural bar this way. To use § 2241, a prisoner must establish that the rem- edy provided under § 2255 is inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of his detention. Id. § 2255(e). Under our precedent, three circumstances satisfy this standard: (1) when the petitioner chal- lenges the execution of his sentence; (2) when the sentencing court is unavailable; or (3) when “practical considerations (such as multi- ple sentencing courts) might prevent a petitioner from filing a mo- tion to vacate.” McCarthan, 851 F.3d at 1092–93. Section 2255 is adequate and effective even when a procedural bar prevents re- view on the merits and forecloses relief. Id. at 1089–90. Helton seeks to recast his “second or successive” procedural bar as a “practical consideration” by emphasizing that claims of trial misconduct are often unknown at the time of the first § 2255 mo- tion. But McCarthan’s exception dealt with “practical considera- tions . . . [which] might prevent . . . filing a motion to vacate”—that is, practical considerations about the “available process,” not about the likelihood of “substantive relief.” Id. at 1086, 1093 (emphasis added). This petition does not fall within McCarthan’s “practical considerations” exception. USCA11 Case: 21-14306 Date Filed: 09/23/2022 Page: 4 of 4

4 Opinion of the Court 21-14306

Alternatively, Helton asks us to adopt the Seventh Circuit’s newly discovered evidence rule from In re Davenport, 147 F.3d 605 (7th Cir. 1998). But in McCarthan, we expressly considered Dav- enport and declined to adopt its test. 851 F.3d at 1084–85. And we don’t defer to the circuit law of the sentencing court in a § 2241 habeas petition. Based on a review of the record and the parties’ briefs, we conclude that, under our precedent, the district court properly held that a § 2255 motion is not inadequate or ineffective to test the le- gality of his detention. So Helton does not satisfy the saving clause of § 2255(e), and the district court lacked jurisdiction to consider his § 2241 petition. Accordingly, we affirm. AFFIRMED.